#Yesallwomen reaches one million tweets!

scallops is right, there isn't much point in continuing this.

downamongtherednecks arf!

Anyway, after that excitement, back to the #yesallwomen hashtag???

It's still going on, still new tweets. It might not save the world, but it might be the small rock which starts the avalanche!

Honey. Everyone else got it, you are not stupid, so please don't expect anyone to believe you didn't get that too. You know that isn't true.

I refuse to engage with someone who seems to have a singular agenda, to whit, slagging the posters in FWR off. If you don't like posting here, might I suggest you stick to whichever baby club you're part of? It is impossible to debate things with a person who, despite their obvious intelligence, resorts to insults and abuse whenever they think they are losing the momentum.

I am not for one second telling you what to do, but you will find fewer and fewer people willing to be told what to think and do by someone who is incapable of carrying an argument in a bucket. You think differently from all of us, despite our differing views, despite our differing paths and experiences, to you, we're all a homogeneous mass of stupid, hysterical (context 1 or 2), irrational man haters. This really isn't the case, but you have made your mind up.

Honey, I defy you to find anything I have said which would suggest I am a man-hater. (Some of my best friends are men .) But there are many things you have said which suggest you are a woman-hater.

I have male friends who havnt had sex for years and despite saying they'd like it, it would be nice if it happened they don't have any 'entitlement' to it whatsoever.

And now I'm disengaging because your arguments are ridiculous, honey.

No what I'm saying is we hate misogynists. There you go again. Doing 2 + 2 and getting 55.

I think most people hate Elliot Rodger. Are you seriously trying to suggest he represents men?

What the actual fuck.

'The context of your posts have not been misinterpreted at all. '

Im sorry but yes they have. You saying they havnt makes sod all difference, many of my posts on here have been misinterpreted. Its a common mistake for people to make when discussing things via text only.

Ooh man haters. The worst thing in the world we could be. Obviously. We hate Elliot Rodgers that's for sure.

'No, you can often tell context from the words people type, how they phrase themselves etc'

And you often cannot. It depends on the quality of writing from the poster.

You stated a woman blogger (or similar?) stated something and it was hysterical.

How would anyone know if you meant funny or hysterical in the context I meant?

They wouldn't. That is the point. You didnt post anything that suggested you meant funny.

^YY

"You do realize that context cannot be interpreted when people are communicating via text speak only?" Of course you can tell context from written text. What a strange thing to suggest, honey.

I am not blindly agreeing with every post on here, therefore I am making the threads all about me and my views.

Great logic. I cannot believe how stupid some posters on this forum are. No wonder barely anyone outside of this fringe movement takes their views seriously.

RFFU the day when the ignore poster button is made will be a happy one, however, I agree, stop throwing goats!

How ironic. Replied to ReallyFuckingFedUp, of course.

No, you can often tell context from the words people type, how they phrase themselves etc. You know this, you're not stupid. It's not context that is difficult to infer from typed text, it is tone and subtext, which are often communicated non verbally.

The context of your posts have not been misinterpreted at all. The words you have used to describe your beliefs about the posters on this board have been unambiguous. You know exactly what you're saying, how you're saying it and how it will be perceived. As I said, you're not stupid.

^YY

'It's totally not for me to dictate, but there are a couple threads now that are just now discussing 22honey and her musings on the world and not the threads.'

Sorry, but how are the threads discussing me? We are discussing the issue at hand, misogyny, men and this particular killer.

I am quoting and replying to the posts of other posters, and they are all relevant to the thread subject. What you mean is you don't like or agree with what I say, therefore what I'm saying has nothing to do with the topic and is all about me.

Utterly backward.

It's totally not for me to dictate, but there are a couple threads now that are just now discussing 22honey and her musings on the world and not the threads.

Would anyone just like to agree to disengage? Mental ignore button?

' it's when their desire for sex, or affection, or attention, or whatever, is deemed by them more important than the other person's desire to not have that behaviour visited upon them'

In my experience most men do not think this whatsoever. It is truly disgusting to generalize 'men' and say that they deem their sex drive more important than the wants of the other person. A lot of men do but I'd say as a group no they don't.

What they do do as a group, is desire and want sex and often with women that are attractive. This is seen as entitled by the types that frequent this forum regardless of whether the man does actually think he is entitled to it or not.